owa-mail-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete Email

delete_email

Destructive

Delete an email from your mailbox, moving it to Deleted Items by default. Use hard_delete to permanently purge the message.

Instructions

Delete an email — to Deleted Items by default.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item_id`	Yes	item_id from find_emails.
`hard_delete`	No	purge irrecoverably instead of moving to Deleted Items.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds the important qualifier that deletion moves to Deleted Items by default. It doesn't highlight that hard_delete is irrecoverable, but the schema covers that; no contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It states the action and the key default behavior efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple delete operation with full schema coverage, annotations, and output schema, this description is mostly sufficient. It lacks explicit usage alternatives, but the name and siblings make the purpose clear; a small mention of hard_delete's irreversibility would improve completeness but is not necessary given schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers both parameters at 100% with descriptions. The description's phrase 'to Deleted Items by default' reinforces the hard_delete default but adds no information beyond schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'email', and adds default behavior 'to Deleted Items'. This clearly distinguishes from sibling event actions and makes the tool's scope obvious.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Usage is implied by the tool name and sibling context, but the description doesn't discuss alternatives or conditions like when a hard delete is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.